Wednesday, July 17, 2013

New paper finds the Sun controls climate, not man-made CO2

A new peer-reviewed paper published in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews points out the many problems of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis and finds "the role of the sun in the presently observed global warming has been greatly underestimated." The authors review "the prime role that the sun should have on the earth's climate with regard to solar cycles’ activity and irradiance, cosmic rays and cloud formation" and conclude "that a natural signal of solar forcing has been mistakenly overlooked for an anthropogenic change, maybe owing to their quite similar effects on climate. For the moment, science does not really have a complete and total understanding of the factors affecting the earth's complex climate system and therefore no sound conclusions can be drawn."

Abstract

This paper discusses the effect of the greenhouse phenomenon and CO2 on global climate and suggests that numerical models that lack adequate knowledge of fundamental related factors cannot be used to extract “sound” conclusions. A very basic demonstration of this is done through a simple comparison between estimates of the forecast for global temperature increase obtained by various independent studies. Observing the global temperature and the CO2 atmospheric concentration though the geological aeons implies no obvious correlation. Physical observation on other planets like Mars and Venus, needing no numerical modeling, demonstrates the effect of the atmospheric-CO2 partial pressure on the temperature of the atmosphere. Moreover the CO2 role as a factor of danger or a benefactor for life is also addressed. On the other hand the role of the sun in the presently observed global warming has been greatly underestimated. Scientific evidence shows that the orbit of the earth and the Milankovitch cycles greatly affect the climate. A discussion follows pointing out the prime role that the sun should have on the earth's climate with regard to solar cycles’ activity and irradiance, cosmic rays and cloud formation. The conclusion drawn here is that a natural signal of solar forcing has been mistakenly overlooked for an anthropogenic change, maybe owing to their quite similar effects on climate. For the moment science does not really have a complete and total understanding of the factors affecting the earth's complex climate system and therefore no sound conclusions can be drawn.

Keywords

Global climate;

CO2;

Milankovitch cycles;

Solar cycles;

Cosmic rays;

Cloud formation

Figures and tables from this article:

Fig. 1. Size of earth compared to the sun and a solar flare (credit: jpl.nasa.gov).

Fig. 5. The temperature change (ΔT) and CO2 records of the last millennium from a Greenland ice core (GISP2). Temperature was calculated from the 50-year smoothed record as T=0.6906·δ18O– 13.68 (adapted from [18]).

Fig. 7. Levels of CO2 in the atmosphere (blue line) and temperature trends over the past 300 million years. The CO2curve is the mean, with the ‘envelope’ showing the standard deviation, and is based on Retallack's [22] stomatal-index analysis. Relative trends in temperature are inferred from the oxygen isotope record of marine fossils [19]. Horizontal bars at the top indicate periods of predominantly cool (blue) and warm (red) modes of the Earth's climate (redrawn from[23]). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 8. A. Comparison of model predictions (GEOCARB III; [24]) and proxy reconstructions of CO2 in 10 million years time-steps. Shaded area represents the range of error for model predictions. Blue line presents temperature deviations relative to today calculated by Shaviv and Veizer [26] from “10/50” δ18O data, adjusted for pH effects due to changes in seawater Ca++ concentration and CO2 based on GEOCARB III. B. Intervals of glacial (dark blue) or cool climates (light blue). (Modified from [25]). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 11. Comparative planetary climate relationship for Mars, Earth and Venus based on the greenhouse warming of Mars and Venus, which are produced by their atmospheric partial pressures of CO2 (solid line). Also shown is the almost identical relationship derived from standard considerations related to the Earth's paleoclimatic record and the first early Sun paradox (dashed line) (redrawn from [29]).

Fig. 12. (A) Precession parameter displayed on an inversed vertical axis (black line). (B) EDC temperature (solid line, rainbow colors from blue – cold temperatures- to red – warm temperatures) and its obliquity component extracted using a Gaussian filter within the frequency range 0.043±0.015 ky–1 (dashed red line, also displayed in (D) as a solid red line on a different scaling). Red rectangles indicate periods during which obliquity is increasing and precession parameter is decreasing. (C) Combined top-of-atmosphere radiative forcing due to CO2 and CH4 (solid blue) and its obliquity component (dashed blue, also displayed in (D) as a solid blue line on a different scaling). (D) Obliquity (solid black line), obliquity component of EDC temperature (red line), and obliquity component of the top-of-atmosphere radiative forcing due to CO2 and CH4 (blue). Insolations were calculated using the Analyseries software [36]. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 13. Resulting temperature deviations (5) with respect to time presenting the combined effect of the attraction of the earth by the moon and the sun (2) and the main harmonic components of the Milankovitch cycles (3)–(4), compared to the Vostok isotope temperature measurements (1) (redrawn from [14]).

Fig. 14. The part of the cyclic Wolf-number curve (cycles 22–23, solid line) and CGL intensities Iλ (dashed line) shifted forward by 10 years. Open circles indicate the forecast of the Wolf- numbers for solar cycles 23–24 (see [38]). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 15. In red, David Hathaway's predictions for solar cycles 24–25 and, in pink, Mausumi Dikpati's prediction for cycle 24 [4 0 7]. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 17. Green line showing cycles 1–6 lasting for about 70 years (1755–1825) compared to cycles 20–24 for the years 1965 till today [37], showing good similarity and suggesting that cycle 24 and 25 will cause cooling of global temperature. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 18. Detailed solar angular momentum (AM) graphs showing perturbations at the green arrows. The AM perturbations are the result of the extra AM from the Uranus/Neptune conjunction. The timing in relation to the Jupiter/Saturn opposition provides the different perturbation shapes that can be measured via the relevant planet angles and categorized into two groups. Perturbations occurring on the down slope “Type A” and those on the up slope “Type B” (down slope=right hand side of peak)-redrawn from [45].

Fig. 22. Correlation between GCR (red) and UV (green) and coverage of low clouds (blue). ISCCP data for coverage of low altitude clouds after adjustment for their offset when compared with the independent data set of low cloud. From top: annual cycle removed, trend and internal modes removed, solar cycle removed (modified from [50]). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)